Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook



 

Surrogacy, parenthood and disputes: are there any lessons to be learned?

14 February 2011

By Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert

Partners at Gamble and Ghevaert LLP www.gambleandghevaert.com

Appeared in BioNews 595
Surrogacy has been around for many years and disputes rarely arise. There have only been a handful of published cases in the English courts where a surrogacy arrangement has gone wrong. However, the recently published case of TT (a Minor) (1) received national press and radio coverage, focusing on Mr Justice Baker's warning about the inherent risks of surrogacy, awarding care of the baby to the surrogate mother and yet again putting surrogacy in the media spotlight.

The case of TT (a minor) involved a woman who met a married couple over the Internet and agreed informally to become a surrogate mother for them, conceiving by private arrangement using her own egg and the intended father's sperm. The agreement was not set up by one of the UK's not for profit surrogacy agencies and so the parties did not have the benefit of advice, counselling and support that such agencies routinely provide. The arrangement also followed a history of dealings with several Internet surrogacy sites, the facts of which were disputed by the parties. The parties' relationship broke down during the pregnancy and the surrogate mother had a change of heart and decided to keep the baby. The intended parents then applied to court for a residence order. The baby girl was five months old when the court gave judgment and the intended parents had had only limited contact with her since birth.

The court's decision to award care to the surrogate mother was guided by the paramount consideration of the baby's welfare. This decision was based on the close attachment formed between the surrogate (and biological) mother and the baby, the ongoing breastfeeding and the risk of emotional harm if the baby was moved into the care of the intended parents in the stark manner the intended parents proposed. In particular, the court expressed concern about the intended parents' ability to meet the baby's emotional needs longer term and their lack of insight as to the importance of the baby girl's relationship and close attachment with the surrogate mother. Mr Justice Baker went on to highlight the risk that the '...natural process of carrying and giving birth to a baby creates an attachment which may be so strong that the surrogate mother finds herself unable to give up the child'. It was therefore a fact based decision and does not set a binding precedent, although it will inevitably strike an uncomfortable note amongst prospective intended parents.

The case of TT (a minor) highlights the advent of Internet surrogacy sites that make informal surrogacy agreements possible, which leads to the question whether there would have been a different outcome if the parties had received support and advice from a surrogacy agency, together with counselling or some form of regulation earlier in the process. However, the fact that there have been so few published cases of surrogacy arrangements which have gone wrong in the UK is testament to the care and attention with which these arrangements are usually set up and approached by intended parents, surrogates, surrogacy agencies and, where conception takes place at a licensed clinic, by counsellors and medical professionals who have a duty to consider the best interests of any future born child.

Over the last ten years, there have been only two published judgments where the English courts have had to untangle disputed surrogacy arrangements. The case of Re W and B and H (Child Abduction: Surrogacy) (2) involved a surrogacy arrangement between an English surrogate and US intended parents who entered into a binding surrogacy agreement in California. During the pregnancy the surrogate mother had a change of heart and returned to the UK where she gave birth to twins. The court eventually determined that the babies should be returned to California, following international abduction proceedings brought by the US intended parents. The case of Re N (a Child) (3) involved a dispute over a surrogate born child between the surrogate parents and intended parents, where the court eventually awarded care of the then 18 month old child to the intended parents. The outcomes of these cases indicate the wide-ranging and fact based approach taken by the court.

The question of how to treat and regulate surrogacy arrangements raises many issues, and the UK has so far adopted a cautious middle ground approach allowing surrogacy on a restricted basis, banning commercially arranged surrogacy and making it a criminal offence for prospective surrogates or intended parents to advertise. Public policy in the UK also prevents the use of binding surrogacy contracts. Surrogacy arrangements are therefore based on trust and goodwill in the UK and the intended parents must apply to court for a parental order post birth in order to obtain full parental rights for the child. This can only be granted with the full consent of the surrogate mother and, if married, her husband. Other countries take a different approach, with many European countries banning surrogacy altogether, for example France and Italy. However, some US states, India and Ukraine permit surrogacy on a commercial basis where surrogacy contracts are legally enforceable and require the surrogate mother to hand over the baby to the intended parents at birth.

The media coverage of the case of TT (a minor) (1) and growing interest and globalisation of surrogacy brings new challenges for us all to grapple with. There is nothing new about surrogacy, but the increasing numbers of people seeking to create families through surrogacy in the UK and abroad, as well as the power of the Internet and celebrity endorsement by the likes of Elton John and Nicole Kidman has inevitably captured public imagination and therefore puts an increasing strain on the current legal system. However, while it remains rare for surrogacy arrangements to end in dispute, there will continue to be occasions where the surrogate mother changes her mind and seeks to keep the baby, which will continue to bring into focus the inherent risks of a UK surrogacy process based on trust and goodwill that was designed over twenty years ago to cater for a small number of altruistic cases involving friends and family.

SOURCES & REFERENCES
1) In the Matter of TT (a Minor) [2011] EWHC 33 (Fam)
| 2011
 
2) In the Matter of W and W v H (Child Abduction: Surrogacy) No 2 [2002] 2 FLR 252
| 2002
 
3) In the Matter of N (a Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 1053
| 2007
 

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

01 June 2015 - by Rebecca Carr 
Feminist writer Germaine Greer has criticised Elton John for allowing his husband, David Furnish, to be named as the 'mother' of their sons on their birth certificates...
16 September 2013 - by Louisa Ghevaert 
Two recent surrogacy disputes have emerged from Wisconsin, in the United States, and South Africa which highlight the challenging legal and practical issues surrogacy can create....
05 March 2012 - by Rosemary Paxman 
A respected adoption lawyer has been sentenced to prison for her role in an international baby-selling operation. Theresa Erickson, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud in August 2011, was sentenced by a San Diego court to five months in prison followed by nine months in home confinement and ordered to pay a $70,000 fine....
04 July 2011 - by Professor Anne Kerr 
Zippi Brand Frank's documentary 'Google Baby' gives us a fascinating insight into the global business of making babies. The programme follows an Israeli business man as he recruits commissioning parents via the internet, US brokers and egg donors, Indian assisted conception clinics and gestational surrogates ....
18 April 2011 - by Ayesha Ahmad 
A couple must pay over £500 monthly maintenance to a surrogate mother who decided to keep the baby...

31 January 2011 - by Antony Blackburn-Starza 
A UK surrogate who changed her mind about handing over a baby to a couple has been allowed to keep the child, the High Court has ruled....
10 January 2011 - by Seil Collins 
Elton John and David Furnish announced the birth of their first child, Zachary Kackson Levon Furnish-John born on Christmas day to a surrogate mother in California....
10 January 2011 - by Louisa Ghevaert 
International surrogacy has become big news. Last month, a landmark international commercial surrogacy case, Re L, attracted front page national headlines. Hard on its heels the media spotlight fell on the birth of Elton John and David Furnish's US surrogate born son, Zachary, on Christmas Day. This has fuelled the debate about surrogacy and the question is why has it generated such attention?...
13 December 2010 - by Antony Blackburn-Starza 
The UK's High Court has granted legal parenthood to the parents of a child born using a surrogate in the United States to allow them to keep the child in the country....
30 April 2010 - by Louisa Ghevaert 
Birth certificates have been a hot topic in the UK in recent weeks. There has been much controversy, confusion and misunderstanding, aptly shown by Caroline Gammell's article in The Daily Telegraph newspaper and Colin Fernandez's article in the Daily Mail on 19 April incorrectly hailing the advent of the first lesbian couple to both be named as parents on their baby daughter's birth certificate, born 31 March this year. Lesbian couples have not in fact had to wait until the beginning of April...

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


- click here to enquire about using this story.

Published by the Progress Educational Trust
Advertise your products and services HERE - click for further details

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation